https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... occultism/
The piece opens with a visual highlighting some Crowley passages from a book I am unfamiliar with, but the quotes will be all-too familiar:
https://i0.wp.com/auticulture.com/wp-co ... rifice.jpg
"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."
...
"It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928"
...
"Those magicians who abject to the use of blood have endeavored to replace it with incense. For such a purpose the incense of Abramelin may be burnt in large quantities. Dittany of Crete is also a valuable medium. Both these incenses are very catholic in their nature, and suitable for almost any materialization.
But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best. The truly great Magician will be able to use his own blood, or possibly that of a disciple, and that without sacrificing the physical life irrevocably."
...
"Further evidence that Crowley favoured the involvement of children in occultic rites is furnished later. Page 347 gives the formula..."
Crowley later claimed that his comment about performing the child-sacrificial ritual 150 times a year was a joke-reference to masturbation. Back in the day when I was more naïve about these things, I took him at his word. Now I’d counter with two points: firstly, even if it were a joke, or “joke,” he could hardly not have known that countless people who read this passage (in his most famous book) would have taken the exhortation at face value. In how many cases might the words have been acted on? Did Crowley care?
Secondly, from what I’ve come to understand in the past few years of looking into the systemic, ritual abuse children in the UK and elsewhere, one of the standard methods of these practitioners is to make “jokes” about what they do—or rather to speak openly about it and then, if they are met with a shocked response, claim to have “only been joking.” Apparently this same method was practiced by Neil Kramer on and after the recent podcast we did together. Those who take the boasts seriously but are not disturbed by them, on the other hand, can be trusted with further disclosures.
This doesn’t mean everyone who makes “jokes” about such stuff is applying this method; for all I know Crowley and Kramer were/are as innocent of the dark dealings they like to brag about as their respective legions of followers need to believe they are (or at least need others to believe). At this point I don’t really care. Joking about such stuff and/or professing it to be irrelevant betrays a complete lack of sensitivity to the stark reality that’s being both concealed and facilitated by these cavalier attitudes.
I confess that currently I am suffering from an extreme allergic reaction to this sort of overly intellectual, starkly insensitive “masculine” energy, hence this post comes from a desire to be as clear as possible about my personal feelings about this, without trying to assert that it is necessarily anything more than that (personal).
I have an extreme sensitivity to alcohol too, probably partly because my mother drank while I was in the womb (and even during my birth process). As a result, I can’t have a glass of wine without suffering from a hangover the next day, and so I haven’t touched a drop of alcohol in years.
At this point, I feel the same way about occultism. Whether it is due to the toxicity of the substance or my own allergy to it is largely irrelevant, to me at least; either way, I wish to create some distance.
)
